Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 423 (UTT)

Shri Girish Chandra v. Union of India & Ors.

2008-09-16

P.C.VERMA

body2008
Judgment By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner under compassionate appointment framed by the Govt. of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner, who was working in GREF Department of the Central Government, died on 8.9.1989 while in service. At that time, the petitioner was minor. At the same time, the mother of the petitioner, moved an application to the respondents stating therein that when her son/petitioner would attain the age of majority, he may be given appointment in place of his father under Dying in Harness Rules. Thereafter, on 28.9.1989, a letter was sent by the respondent office to the mother of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that if any person in the family is not in Govt. Service, there is a provision to give appointment to a male person under Compassionate Ground. In the said letter, mother of the petitioner was directed to fulfill the application form annexed with the said letter. The mother of the petitioner fulfilled the form for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground with undertaking that the petitioner shall look after the family. When the petitioner matured, on 6.7.2000, mother of the petitioner wrote a letter to the Commandant GREF / respondent no. 3 for appointment of her son under the policy of compassionate appointment. In reply to the said letter, on 8.8.2000 a letter was sent to the mother of the petitioner along with a form providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Application form was filled along with all the formalities and sent to the respondent no. 3. The application form was forwarded to the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 10.8.2000 for taking necessary action. Thereafter, on 12.12.2000, a letter was sent by the respondent no. 3 stating therein that the application of the petitioner is under consideration and the matter will take six to eight months. Thereafter again, on 1.11.2001, a letter was sent by the respondent no. 3 informing the petitioner that the matter is under consideration and the same will take further six to twelve months. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that years have passed, but till date no decision has been taken regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. Thereafter again, on 1.11.2001, a letter was sent by the respondent no. 3 informing the petitioner that the matter is under consideration and the same will take further six to twelve months. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that years have passed, but till date no decision has been taken regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition as well as of the rejoinder affidavit. 5. In paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit, it has been alleged that the candidature for compassionate appointment has to be considered within one year form the date of death. 6. After taking into consideration all the revalant document available on record and the contents of the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the delay which occurred in making the application was due to the fact that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and after attaining the majority as prescribed for being given appointment, the petitioner has made the application for appointment, which cannot be said to be belated, therefore, the delay in moving the application for compassionate appointment is liable to be condoned. The authorities are directed to condone the delay of the application and consider the application of the petitioner filed under the relevant Dying in Harness Rules. 7. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of finally.